R+L=J v.90

[BearQueen87]

Headline:

"Notable, noble wild girl lady Lyanna Stark-Targaryen, dead from a fever brought on by the clap."

As reported from the Mushroom school of Journalism.

What? No mention of his own member? ;)

[honeyed chicken]

If I could find the SSM...GRRM has this comment about mysteries and that if all the clues are leading you to the butler, then it should be the butler.

There are other clues but you and many others dismiss them. Maybe you are right to do so, but I think you take a lot of faith and I'm not willing to do that.

The thing is, with each new bit of information or each book that comes out, this theory actually just gets more solidified, not less. I have yet to see a shred of any new material that undermines it or significantly challenges it or offers any kind of more attractive (or even workable, really) alternative.

The best mystery writers write mysteries that reward paying attention, and that can be solved through analysis and critical thinking. Only hacks pull out cheap "gotcha" shocks, because they don't have the skill needed to actually craft a competent mystery. GRRM is not a hack.

You are generalizing wildly. there's a lot of information that makes no sense (we've spent a good deal of the day wrangling over the disposition of the KG leading up to and after the sack which I find puzzling to put it mildly). There are other bits of information that have come out (Borrell's comment about the fisherman's daughter bearing Ned's son, Jon Snow) that some here have dismissed as gossip. Based on what, I don't know.

I don't think Martin would lay all his cards on the tale in book one. Why would he do that? Of course he's got an ace up his sleeve. You want me to tell you what the ace is? Sorry, I'm no good at that, but I can tell as a general strategic move, making the answer plain in book one of a seven book series is pretty dumb.

and

What's the harm in saying, "I think so but I'm not sure"? Being that I personally am wrong a lot I may have more practice at doing this than many of you seem to.

I think it's a personal preference for agnosticism for some people. I've always found it to be intellectual cowardice hiding under the guise of intellectual honesty, but that's just my opinion. I'd rather take a position than say "We can't know."

You calling me a fence sitter?

Not really my style.

It may take me a little longer, but I make up my mind.

This reminds me of some global waring debates I've been in. The non-believers like to wave pseudo science in your face and pretend they've answered points that are based in real science.

Here I keep bringing up legitimate questions and not getting solid answers (because ultimately the answers come from Martin and he has coyly not provided them - why should he? This debate helps move merchandise.).

In this case we've waited five books and nearly two decades to get to this point. Where's the harm in waiting some more? Do you get points for saying, "I have been 100% behind the R+L=J theory since 2002?" That'll look great on a resume some day.

I got it. http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html

Read: GRRM is not going to change R+L=J just because people figured it out.

Read that already or something like it.

It's good to know GRRM has integrity.

Same. I'd rather come down on a concrete answer and be wrong than be a chronic waffler.

I'm pretty used to the former situation. If you're calling me a waffler you'd be the first (you and Aeron_Damphair).

[mambru]

I have actually never said this. Once I told you that your opinion was just one person's opinion and that does not make it objectively valid, and also mentioned that many others have a different opinion. That is different from saying that: the fact that many more people believe my position than yours is evidence for the validity of mine. I acknowledged that you were not entirely unjustified in interpreting it this way. The second time, you mistook my "people generally consider" to mean forum posters when my intended meaning was in universe people. In neither case did I claim that because more people were on my side that I was more likely to be right. In both cases, I acknowledged that I did not make myself clear enough. Fair? I already explained this to you, yet you insist on repeating this for some reason.

I said you have used a logically fallacious Appeal to the Majority to disqualify my opinion twice - and you did:

You believe you have the support of the author and the text. You make loose and tenuous connections that satisfy no one but yourself that these connections are applicable when they are not.

They did not make the decision to parley. This is not problematic for most people looking at the evidence. It is problematic for your interpretation, but you are one person. It is not objectively problematic.

I'm not even counting that time where you clarified you were talking about in-universe people. So I think I do have some little basis to say that you display a tendency to disqualify a minority opinion because it is minority - which is not the friendliest attitude toward debate.

But if you really want to continue to debate, we can start with you addressing my argument about the default position. Explain why it is not sound.

So you assume that your opinion is "the default." I provide proof for my opinion and you disqualify it as not enough and the wrong sort. I ask you for proof of a keystone of your own opinion. You can't provide it, but that doesn't matter because your opinion is "the default" and requires less proof than mine. Again, that doesn't seem a very friendly attitude toward debate.

I never told you to go away, I just thought it might be better that we agree to disagree.

You keep saying that. :) And yet in the past when I took you at your word and stopped directing comments at your posts, you kept replying to posts I was making to other people to continue to tell me how very very wrong and unreasonable I was.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Yeah what's important is that she died due to complication from child birth. I would add that it's important that Jon was born before Ned arrives. I don't care if that's 10 hour or 10 days. The KG knew that Lyanna had given birth to a boy.

Well, it might matter if it was only 10 hours. Part of the theory seems to be that it seems clear from the conversation with Ned that the KG were already aware of the sack and Viserys going to Dragonstone before Ned arrived. If that reading of the conversation is accurate, then the fact that no KG goes to Dragonstone to be with Viserys suggests that Jon was born before the KG got this news. So that version of the theory requires the following order of events: (1) Jon is born; (2) news of sack and V to Dragonstone gets to KG; and (3) Ned arrives at ToJ. So there needs to be enough time between (1) and (3) for (2) to occur. Ten hours is probably not enough--but I agree with the gist of your point. If Jon was born later than this theory assumes,however, then some modification needs to be made to the theory.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well, it might matter if it was only 10 hours. Part of the theory seems to be that it seems clear from the conversation with Ned that the KG were already aware of the sack and Viserys going to Dragonstone before Ned arrived. If that reading of the conversation is accurate, then the fact that no KG goes to Dragonstone to be with Viserys suggests that Jon was born before the KG got this news. So that version of the theory requires the following order of events: (1) Jon is born; (2) news of sack and V to Dragonstone gets to KG; and (3) Ned arrives at ToJ. So there needs to be enough time between (1) and (3) for (2) to occur. Ten hours is probably not enough--but I agree with the gist of your point. If Jon was born later than this theory assumes,however, then some modification needs to be made to the theory.

That's why it would really help to know how long it took Ned to get to the Tower after leaving King's Landing.

[BearQueen87]

Well, it might matter if it was only 10 hours. Part of the theory seems to be that it seems clear from the conversation with Ned that the KG were already aware of the sack and Viserys going to Dragonstone before Ned arrived. If that reading of the conversation is accurate, then the fact that no KG goes to Dragonstone to be with Viserys suggests that Jon was born before the KG got this news. So that version of the theory requires the following order of events: (1) Jon is born; (2) news of sack and V to Dragonstone gets to KG; and (3) Ned arrives at ToJ. So there needs to be enough time between (1) and (3) for (2) to occur. Ten hours is probably not enough--but I agree with the gist of your point. If Jon was born later than this theory assumes,however, then some modification needs to be made to the theory.

Yes I suppose I was exaggerating to make a point. It was a few days at least.

ETA: basically, I can't read any more math arguments that involve weird fractions.

[UnmaskedLurker]

That's why it would really help to know how long it took Ned to get to the Tower after leaving King's Landing.

Yes, but I don't think GRRM is going to give us that information (at least not until after the big reveal).

[UnmaskedLurker]

ETA: basically, I can't read any more math arguments that involve weird fractions.

Amen to that--no double amen to that.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yes, but I don't think GRRM is going to give us that information (at least not until after the big reveal).

Oh I agree. It's really the last piece of the puzzle.

My own "pet" theory, a subset of the larger R+L=J if you will, is that Jon was actually born very, very soon after the Sack. "Two kings to wake the dragon" = Aerys and Aegon's deaths resulting in Jon's birth. In order for that to fit, admittedly, his birth needs to have occurred, obviously, right after the Sack. That is actually well within GRRM's parameters that he's already given. The hangnail is, did Ned arrive quickly enough for Lyanna to still plausibly be alive after giving birth if she did so right after the Sack? We already know there was enough time between the Sack and Ned's arrival for the Kingsguard to get the news.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Oh I agree. It's really the last piece of the puzzle.

My own "pet" theory, a subset of the larger R+L=J if you will, is that Jon was actually born very, very soon after the Sack. "Two kings to wake the dragon" = Aerys and Aegon's deaths resulting in Jon's birth. In order for that to fit, admittedly, his birth needs to have occurred, obviously, right after the Sack. That is actually well within GRRM's parameters that he's already given. The hangnail is, did Ned arrive quickly enough for Lyanna to still plausibly be alive after giving birth if she did so right after the Sack? We already know there was enough time between the Sack and Ned's arrival for the Kingsguard to get the news.

I like that theory. I wonder if GRRM just failed to consider that 10 days is a bit unrealistic for Ned to get to ToJ--or maybe did not do adequate research on puerperal fever (seems less likely). This conundrum is what gives me stress concerning the theory. Everything else about the theory seems to fit together perfectly. But, as noted many times, GRRM admits he is bad on the time for distances. But 10 days to get from KL to Storm's End to ToJ seems very short, even at just a cursory outlining of the events.

[BearQueen87]

Oh I agree. It's really the last piece of the puzzle.

My own "pet" theory, a subset of the larger R+L=J if you will, is that Jon was actually born very, very soon after the Sack. "Two kings to wake the dragon" = Aerys and Aegon's deaths resulting in Jon's birth. In order for that to fit, admittedly, his birth needs to have occurred, obviously, right after the Sack. That is actually well within GRRM's parameters that he's already given. The hangnail is, did Ned arrive quickly enough for Lyanna to still plausibly be alive after giving birth if she did so right after the Sack? We already know there was enough time between the Sack and Ned's arrival for the Kingsguard to get the news.

I like this theory as well. And, really, all GRRM needs to do is say that "Ned rode like the wind" and "nothing stood in their way" or something. He can make it work, even if we as readers need to stretch our minds a little bit.

[Arlan of Pennytree]

Truthfully, a woman can bleed for longer than a month after childbirth. Basically, there's no way to pin down his true age at this time.

So true! But the 2 weeks comes from others exhaustive examinations of the earliest time of birth of Jon Snow, from the time-frame Chelsted was burned and Rhaella, newly pregnant with Daenerys, fled to Dragonstone. There was an aweful good debate about this in R+L=J v.89. . .

[stateofdissipation]

Yeah what's important is that she died due to complication from child birth. I would add that it's important that Jon was born before Ned arrives. I don't care if that's 10 hour or 10 days. The KG knew that Lyanna had given birth to a boy.

I would add that it's important that Jon was born before Ned arrives. I don't care if that's 10 hour or 10 days. The KG knew that Lyanna had given birth to a boy.

That is the weak link in the KG equals king present hypothesis.... it requires the hypothesis that Jon was born

I would support the KG are protecting a member of the royal family... because I can cite sources

a case case for R married L with 1 hypothesis...

Eddard chapter 36

---Ned has just resigned as hand over Robert's order to kill children, stating--"I thought you a better man than this Robert, I thought we had made a better king."--Eddard aGoT page 343.

"but he(Ned) had assured her(Lyanna) that what Robert did before their betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true that would love her with all his heart." aGoT page 367

---Lyanna disagreed stating:"Love is sweet dearest Ned but it cannot change a man's nature" aGoT page 367

---Going to a brothel to see one of Robert's bastards clearly showed Ned that he had been mistaken.

"He wondered if Rhaegar Targaryen had frequented brothels; somehow he thought not." aGoT page 369

Ned was visiting Robert's bastard at a brothel. He had just confirmed that what Robert did (sex) before his betrothal did matter.

Ned thought Rhaeger would not frequent brothels.----Unknown source of this conclusion---

Hypothesis---the unknown source of the conclusion---Ned knew that Rhaegar did not have sex before his marriage.

This will run us back in to but Rhaegar was married.

Polygamy from the time of dragons.. is pretty weak.---Not illegal and has happened 250 years ago.. have severe limitations

There is evidence in the text that is recent and applicable;

"...How long till he decides to put me aside for some new Lyanna?"-- Cersei aGoT page 79 paperback

"The maid was Loras tyrell`s sister Margaery, he'd confessed, but there were those that said she looked like Lyanna"--aGoT page 269 paperback

"A year ago I schemed to make the girl (Margaery Tyrell) Robert's queen."--Renly aCoK page 478 paperback

The source (in law or religion) of Cersei's concern and Renly's scheme is not given. It clearly is not the Targaryen polygamy from the time of dragons.

Lyanna plays in to both the concern and the scheme.

Hypothesis-- Rhaegar put Elia aside for Lyanna.

[mambru]

One huge piece of evidence IMO is Jon's name.

As explained with Lolly's bastard Tyrion, It is highly offensive to name a bastard after someone. So why is Jon named Jon then?

So do you think Lady Stokeworth was born in a barn, and had no idea of this simple rule of etiquette? IMO, that scene with Cersei showed that Cersei was going off the deep end, not that Lady Stokeworth was offending against manners.

Besides, if it was really such a breach of etiquette to name a bastard after someone, then someone would have remarked on how gauche Ned was to name Jon after Jon Arryn (regardless of Ned's secret motives in doing so).

Not to mention that LF wouldn't have chosen to name his bastard child after "Alayne", his own mother, if it would have been considered an odd or unlikely thing to do.

[Arlan of Pennytree]

I like this theory as well. And, really, all GRRM needs to do is say that "Ned rode like the wind" and "nothing stood in their way" or something. He can make it work, even if we as readers need to stretch our minds a little bit.

He's already been covering his ass on this one, saying there could be mistakes in how long it takes so-and-so to ride from here to there, so don't examine the distances and time of travel to extensively

[The Maiden Fair]

How so? You've obviously never hiked 15 miles in an ill-fitting boot. . .and as far as the SSM goes, he simply says ". . .it was never the case that all Targaryens are immune to all fire at all times." which, to me, implies that some are, else he would've said it was never the case that any Targaryens. . .

In any case, she seems to be able to withstand Drogon's fire as well as fire from coals and wood.

Your feet were cracked open oozing white puss? Yikes.

[BearQueen87]

So do you think Lady Stokeworth was born in a barn, and had no idea of this simple rule of etiquette? IMO, that scene with Cersei showed that Cersei was going off the deep end, not that Lady Stokeworth was offending against manners.

Besides, if it was really such a breach of etiquette to name a bastard after someone, then someone would have remarked on how gauche Ned was to name Jon after Jon Arryn (regardless of Ned's secret motives in doing so).

Not to mention that LF wouldn't have chosen to name his bastard child after "Alayne", his own mother, if it would have been considered an odd or unlikely thing to do.

I think the significance of Jon is two fold. There was a King Jon Stark and Jon Arryn was the man who raised Ned like a father but was not really his father. Now Ned is raising Jon as if he is his father, but in reality is not.

[UnmaskedLurker]

He's already been covering his ass on this one, saying there could be mistakes in how long it takes so-and-so to ride from here to there, so don't examine the distances and time of travel to extensively

Oh, I agree. It is just surprising that someone who seems to plot things out as well as GRRM would go out of his way to let us know that Ned has to get from KL to SE to lift the siege and then get to ToJ, but seem to require that all this happen in 10 days. It is just a lot to do in a short time. But I agree, GRRM has given himself an out by stating publicly that distances and travel times might not really work perfectly.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Oh, I agree. It is just surprising that someone who seems to plot things out as well as GRRM would go out of his way to let us know that Ned has to get from KL to SE to lift the siege and then get to ToJ, but seem to require that all this happen in 10 days. It is just a lot to do in a short time. But I agree, GRRM has given himself an out by stating publicly that distances and travel times might not really work perfectly.

His fudging on time/distance actually makes me think there's actually something to my theory. It's left vague enough to raise questions, but at the same time, it's pretty much a given that GRRM will make it work out however he wants. There's more of a need for fudging (and thus more impetus to explain that there might be fudging and to deal with it) if my theory is correct than if Jon were born longer after the Sack, because that would give Ned more time to get there and not put as much constraint on the time element. If that makes sense.

[Alia of the knife]

What? No mention of his own member? ;)

It's enshrined on a plaque at the school. :)